The Fundamentals of Egoist Criticism Pt. II
Contradiction: Self-Help Culture vs. Actualization as a Thing-in-itself
Please read the following essay first:
The next step is another contradiction: We are going to look at how the self-help culture industry has convinced us all that actualization is in the hands of the ego - or the self. This is a perfect example of how individualism is packaged in neat little boxes which, when consumed, feel like agency. It’s how we are taught to give up our power and call ourselves individuals - even though we are almost willingly selling our individualism to a collectivist agenda.
Okay so this is a really difficult point to make because it requires thought BEYOND coping mechanisms. It goe beyond all the defenses we have built to tolerate our unfreedom.
We have convinced ourselves that we are not indulging these cheap and easy social hierarchies. Especially us thinkers…we are so sure we are not being duped. We think critcially, we watch our words, we consider consequences before we engage…all to avoid getting caught up in social hierarchies.
But I believe that there is a step missing. This step, which we are not taking into account, consists of a practice beyond poststructual discourse analysis of power dynamics. It’s more than deconstruction…
So what do I mean?
A Brief History of Criticism
To explain it I am going to give a brief history of the development of criticism.
I 100 percent agree with post-structuralist approaches to understanding culture, society and civilization. But I think there is more to consider.
Poststructural Analysis
Poststructural analysis emerged out of Marxist analysis. Marxist dialectics is an analysis of systems of oppression through the study of historical materialism, meaning it analyzes the historical development of societal oppressive structures through an exploration of its embedded oppositional discourse (the back-and-forth binary of majority and minority conditions and Ideological structures of its time). It developed out of Hegelian analysis, or rather dialectical idealism, where the focus is more on the back-and-forth of opinions and belief structures.
Post-structuralism is a theory and academic "movement" which developed out of structuralism - a theory which claims that analyzing linguistic structural conditions holds the key to understanding culture. Structuralism explains culture through binary oppositions which hold hierarchizations within them, such as signifier/signified, east/west, male/female etc. - it claims that one of those words is always superior and one is subservient. Poststructuralism builds on that notion and tries to destroy these binaries by analyzing their validity - by saying the only reason we are capable of creating these binaries is because of historical and cultural conditioning.
An important factor here is to understand the development of psychoanalysis as well, as it grew parallel and then became interwoven with postsructuralist theory.
Psychoanalysis
So a brief history of thought: psychoanalysis developed out of Sigmund Freud's efforts to integrate what he believed to be structures of thought, or the machine in us which produces thought, into neurological study and diagnostics. Freud believed that every human mind held within it an unconscious meaning making machine which was subject to a totalitarian thought system informed by parental and societal influence. So for example...he believed that the unconscious has 2 parts, the id (the imaginary realm where every thought exists as potential) and the superego (the symbolic and structural authority-based part of our unconscious where we apply the limitations to our agency in favor or being 'civilized'). Freud also posited the theories that humans are driven by a reaction to those limitations through the sublimation of 'drives' which he considered to be 'human nature': sex and violence.
Freud's theories then fell into the hands of Lacan and feminists like Kristeva who developed an important layer of thought beyond those structures of the unconscious. In the case of Lacan these developments furthered Freud's fundamental assumption that there is an unconscious self that has essential drives. He claimed that self is not a thing in itself but rather the interplay between self and other and that without that interplay, which takes place in a field with 3 elements (symbolic, imaginary, real) self cannot exist. Lacan also claimed that instead of looking at drives, we need to look at desire. He believed that desire was a driving force which could never be satisfied. No matter what you do to fulfill a desire, another will pop up and continue the cycle of desiring.
Schizoanalysis
Deleuze and Guattari took this further and said that desire has its own agenda and can be seen represented in material reality by capitalism. They framed capitalism as a kind of parasitic disease which infects the body of society and people and thought. They showed that capitalism is a system desire formed for the sake of its own agenda of eternal reproduction. Therefore it exists independently of the mind.
So while Freud took a structural approach, Lacan took a Hegelian approach and then Deleuze and Guattari took a Marxist approach in terms of its rationale's construction of "reality."
All of these thought structures developed out of and in response to Enlightenment rationality in the West which, in the minds of a bunch or conceited men, marked the age of reason and rationality.
Breaking Binaries
And now???
And now we got this moment in time where binaries are being broken down (intersectionality, critical race theory, queer theory etc.). That is exactly what poststructuralist analysis wanted to achieve. And I don't think it's scary like some academics do. I also don't think it's the greatest achievement of all time though. Because here is the thing...
People have recently and, I claim, because of this push toward binary-breaking become so much more obsessed with 1) identification (which is just another form of conformity) and 2) brand-building as self-actualization.
Social media, for example, has been the battle field where people scream to be seen as, both, unique and aligned with certain identity groups. It's almost like there is an underlying or overarching "condition" which sucks people into a bottomless hole every time they try to establish who they are. Brand creation is to be unique and still, at the same time, valuable to others for consumption. The brand that is you needs to go with the times. It needs a good PR team and a whole shitload of content.
So in terms of analysis, either Lacan was right and there is the underlying condition is that self cannot exist without other or Deleuze and Guattari were right and desire and, stemming from thar, capitalism is this vacuum-armed monster from the sky whose tentacles are sucking anyone who wants to self-actualize back into its consumer satisfaction dynamic
Or.........................was Freud right? Is there something at the very bottom of our minds that drives us to engage in this system altogether? And if so...what could that be? Or...wait....maybe they're all right? Maybe self-actualization is driven by the "drive" to connect (sex and violence being the two most fundamental ways of CONNECTING to other). Maybe consumption, both idealistically and materially is a violent form of connecting.
MAYBE THE CENTRAL PHILOSOPHICAL SUBJECT IS NEITHER SELF NOR OTHER NOR DESIRE BUT ACTUALLY...MAYBE IT IS THE THING WE ARE BRAINWASHED INTO MENTALLY FRAMING AS AN OBJECT:
ACTUALIZATION AS A THING IN ITSELF
(I know this is such a philosophy cliche but hear me out)
Maybe what seems and feels like the desire to self-actualize by breaking down binaries of hierarchy which involves asking for legitimization and is essentially guided by the consumption of other is actually driven by the ACTUALIZATION-PROCESS itself.
It's a yucky thought and Freud would hate me for it but I believe that the reason why we don't want it to make sense is because literally all of the West is terrified of "mythological" thought like it would mean edgy ass philosophers are admitting to wishing God loved them. God can still be dead, bro. Don't worry.
If we stop trying to make it rational, if we try to approach knowledge through aspects of the postcolonialist and feminist logic that the authority claimed in regard to truth is flawed as it lacks so much input from literally anywhere but the West and of oppressed groups due to its need to dominate knowledge by killing God and erasing non-Western cultures then maybe we can see something that wasn't there before.
Phallocentrism & White Supremacy
So now I have to talk about phallocentrism, and return to Freud.
I literally feel like there's a giant white dick stuck in our brain.
And if we don't pull it out I don't know how we are gonna stop this.
So some people say that Freud's biggest flaw was his lack of understanding of women. I love Freud with all my heart but I think that literally couldn't be any truer and he, with good intention, paved the way to a phallocentric society. In fact, I think it's true about any man I've ever encountered...other than one (more about that later).
Freud posited the theory which supported his oedipus theory, that women were led by penis envy which just means that the phallus is the central object in our mental processing which we come to adopt into our mental structures through the object stage of development where we learn that the phallus is a representation of power. And then this other dude said "bro...it's castration anxiety which makes you believe that." Anyways so then that all developed further and people started discussing the phallus as an overarching narrative which we have all been taught to consider "truth."
So...before I lose my marbles...here is my claim:
ACTUALIZATION IS NOT WHAT WE DO. IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT DRIVES US.
BECAUSE THERE IS NO US. THERE IS NO YOU, NO IDENTITY, NO CATEGORIES...that's all just a game someone is playing with us. And we are the chess pieces.
HOWEVER, and this is a huge gigantic however...the most important however that could exist, without me the chess player couldn't play.
Dialectical Egoism
Max Stirner wrote a book called The Ego and his Own in response to Ludwig Feuerbach. Both were students of Hegel. The Ego and its Own is a critique not only of Feuerbach though, it is also a critique of Marxism and a critique of Christianity. His basic premise is
1) that there are 3 stages of "self"-actualization in humans which happen under the condition of external forces. So a child is at first mentally and physically restricted by material forces, then, during youth, it is ideologically conditioned in response to their rebellion to parental guidance. This is at which point the perceived need for conformity through morality and aesthetics and hierarchies and other "spooks' (as he calls them) takes over and enslaves the person. After that, at a third level, the person becomes conscious of a "self."
2) Stirner believes that by sticking to a strict egoism (not in a sensual, hedonistic way, but in a rigid defense of self as untouchable by external influence, and not in rebellion, but in self-care) empowerment from these spooks can be achieved. Stirner also takes the concept of freedom to mean ownness. This makes everyone and everything an instrument for ownness. However, he rejects the notion of "seeking," nullifying self-actualization as, basically, a process taking place between a drug addict and a drug. Stirner calls this conceptualization the "non-seeker."
The main bone he has to pick is with people whom he feels accidentally defend or propagate or rationalize oppressive spook-producing forces in society because of their own position as a seeker. He believes they fail to see that they are merely spokespersons for something of higher value than them. Which Stirner believes is not possible. Nobody and nothing is of higher value than ownness.
The best example here is his beef with Feuerbach, who wrote a book on how we don't need God anymore but than applied "godly" qualities to humans through a focalization of the sensual experience of spiritual belief.
In my opinion, Stirner's fundamental perception of existence is closest to a direct rejection of the concept of a “self” (identity produced through social hierarchies and constructs) as a construct or rebellion to constructs through ownness. I believe that people get caught up in the appeal of rebelling oppression which is the exact point where capitalism swoops in to put a patent on your ownness to produce a brand.
I believe also that the main problem most philosophers have is their need to defy institutional spooks like organized religion or government etc.
I think that hipster mentality of never going with the mainstream or believing that truth can be found in the critique of the mainstream is only insofar relevant as it helps us remember which spook society's main belief structures are based on.
This isn't the only relevant point of access to understanding culture though. In fact, in my opinion, the main problem of trying to understand culture is the belief that understanding culture is culturally relevant.
Why is everyone so obsessed with having a voice in the construction of meaning? You don't need any of your thoughts validated if you stick to the ambiguity of thoughts in general.